Social Cohesion - The Dark Side

A page from the book of John Taylor Gatto - or at least the sort of ideas he represents. I can't handle much more than a page, since the guy is pretty wild, but I do find it useful to keep an eye on what he writes and says.

In my previous blog entry, I put in writing some thoughts about mild forms of indoctrination that instill a sense of a common cultural background and identity. The main message there was that for such mild indoctrination, kindergarten is enough, and TV is more than enough. Much more than enough actually, but that's a different issue.

One can see that some forms of stricter indoctrination do require years of work, conducted by professionals. For example, to create the type of religious zeal that enables a person to become a walking bomb. For such strict indoctrination, it is very useful to remove people from their traditional environment - families and neighbors - and effectively replace one social context for another. What takes the time and professional effort is not learning a culture - we do that effortlessly at home and at kindergarten. What takes all that effort is unlearning a culture and a nature.

This can actually be a useful sign: If in order to create social cohesion, an establishment need to remove kids from their families, and let professionals work on them for years, it means that the establishment is working very hard at erasing an existing culture, tradition or nature. This is grounds for suspicion.

We can get a sense of what needs to be erased and what needs to be built by looking at some basic differences between people going into the education system, and people coming out of it. Let's go for a few rhetorical questions about the differences between those going into and out of school:

• Members of which group tend to assume learning something new is fun?
  
  
• Which ones are more likely to ask questions about something they don't understand?
  
  
• Which group tends to be more creative in solving problems?
  
  
• Which is more likely to try something they are not sure they can do, and which tends to be so self-conscious about failure, that they avoid going where they haven't gone before?
  
  
• Which group spends more time posturing, and which spends more time doing what they like, regardless of what others may say?

There are more questions, even more sickening, but the picture is quite clear: It takes years to make a peg forget it is square, and start being used to the idea of a round hole.

To remove doubt or and preempt silly attacks: I am not speaking against learning, teaching or even schooling. The problems I describe seem to appear with centrally-controlled industrialized schooling. By nature such a schooling system is not able - nor very interested - to accommodate individual or local needs.

It may be argued that this system creates a more stable and predictable society, with a healthy consumer market. "Docile" may be the word. This may be true, but I can't accept docility as a goal for my own children. I want them to have a life more meaningful for them. And to keep my integrity, I wish your kids the same.

Social Cohesion?

A while ago I was thinking of different arguments for and against schooling as it is being done today. Most arguments defending the state controlled mass education are easily refuted - they seem to come from the answers we got as pupils when asking "why do we need to study this?"

We got the answers as kids from a powerful authority figure, and got used to thinking they are right. Again, most of them collapse under scrutiny. There was one that I couldn't dismiss at the time - the argument that standardized schooling provides general knowledge needed to be a valuable member of society. To converse.

Recently a friend brought up this issue again, with a clearer name - "Social Cohesion" - arguing that there is a need for standardized schooling to create that cohesion, that common narrative that makes a society something more than a scattered group of individuals.

Note that this discussion refers to standardized schooling with state-mandated curriculum and methods. An education system that allows parents full choice of what and how their children will learn is a different matter.

First of all, in the context of this blog entry let's assume social cohesion is a good thing: It makes it easier for people to cooperate, which makes society more resilient, and in turn improves the resilience of the individuals - in average.

Secondly, we can acknowledge the intuition that part of social cohesion is a common cultural language - a common set of reference points. Such reference points serve as a shorthand for expressing ideas. For example, comparing someone's attitude to Eeyore is shorter than describing melancholy at length. Winnie the Pooh is certainly a social cohesion agent for some people I know. Such sources for reference points may include books, movies, television programs, knowledge of certain historical periods, etc. Theoretically, if in a given country, kids were all taught the same books, history, religion, etc., it will be a basis for social cohesion. Theoretically.

Thirdly, no less importantly, and much more disturbingly, we should acknowledge that a great part of social cohesion is a common set of beliefs. A common beliefs system mandated by society is disturbing to those who want to think about their society as a pluralistic one. And developed countries seem to like this view of themselves. It's part of their common belief system. Mandated by society.

There is also the common identity, but that can be considered part of the common set of beliefs.

Regarding the common cultural language: It would be interesting to record the conversations of people, analyze the cultural references, and see where they come from. Lacking that, I will look at what I hear around me: People talk about what they saw on TV, whether it's on last night's news, tomorrow's reality show, a sports event or a twenty-year old dramatic series. Not taught in school. People talk about politics - again, related to what they are told on TV, and I never (ever) heard anyone using what they learned at school to better understand politics.

Sometimes - not often - I hear someone who specializes in the analysis of politics using tools they learned either at university or from life. But that is not common to all schooled people, so it has to be pushed outside this discussion. People talk about the economy. Also what the TV tells them and not enlightened by standard schooling. Also, people around me often quote comedians. Not taught at school. They talk and refer each other to what they found on the Internet. Nothing to do with standard schooling.

There are a few areas where conversation among people has to do with their state-mandated schooling. When people read or write, it usually builds on what they studied at school. When people use their standard second language - English in much of the world - it is often built to some extent on what they studied at school. Also, when people consider buying something, or pay and some change, this type of cultural activity is built on the arithmetic they studied at school. Another type of common cultural knowledge people use has to do with basic interpersonal interactions, acceptable behavior, holidays, leaders and historical figures to admire, etc. What's common to all these is that we get most of the knowledge we need in kindergarten.

It would seem that considering common cultural language, in the fields of basic literacy and basic numeracy, standard schooling does provide a meaningful basis for social cohesion, as well as useful basic skills, which are outside the scope of this entry. It would also seem that in terms of commonly known facts and other cultural reference points, standard schooling is not very meaningful beyond kindergarten.

Let's consider now the part of social cohesion having to do with a common set of beliefs. Even not being completely sure how much of it we want, we probably want some. indoctrination (Yes. That's how it's called.) For example, it is very important to western democracies that everybody believes that a representative democracy is the best conceivable way of life. This idea is being pumped at us by the broadcast news, talk shows and dramatic programming. Even the more modern reality shows are often based on voting mechanisms, further pushing the democratic ideas.

The Internet certainly has the democratic spirit at its source, and it is not shy about it. Democracy is celebrated by politicians, artists and other celebrities. It is also promoted in the school, which incidentally is one of the least democratic establishments imaginable. It doesn't seem that school can be a significant part of the belief-installation. It can't compete with the flood of PR from all the other ubiquitous sources. The same goes for common religious beliefs. Where these are desirable to a society or its rulers, they are also ubiquitous - on TV, on billboards, etc.

It seems that for milder forms of indoctrination necessary to create a common set of beliefs and a common identity, again schooling has only a minor role.

Should we trust TV to create our kids' culture? Probably not, but schooling can't be the answer - it doesn't have enough impact. Should we trust "the community" to create the culture? The answer here is amusing. It is almost always: "My community is well equipped to do that, but the other guys' community is not." It is not clear what we should do, which can brings defenders of schooling as builder of social cohesion to say that as long as we don't know how much implicit cultural impact schools have, and as long as we don't have a clear alternative, we should continue with this solution. Let's defenestrate (ooh! I always wanted to use this word in a sentence) this sort of argument with the very little consideration it deserves: To keep our children at a school controlled and run by politicians and other strangers, for so many years, we need very clear reasons. Much clearer than suspected implicit positive impact.

There is also the question of what sort of social cohesion we want. And the question regarding what social cohesion we can expect in a globalized world changing constantly - faster than the curriculum and teacher training could ever change. Then there is also the slightly sinister question of what socialization purposes school does serve. Some other time.